There's no need to post this identical message in more than one place on the forum. Since you seem to favor posting both here and to your blog, I'll do the same...

Modern dictionaries usually say that an English word is derived from a Latin one and they stop there. They do not examine or analyze the etymon of the Latin word.

That's because the only step back from Latin usually leads to Indo-European reconstructions. Where the Latin word is a borrowing from Greek, most dictionaries I've seen will then give the Greek, as for example, poet, or your recent govern example.

That is the reason why I delve into older dictionaries like the following two (Both of them are freely available by google-books):

1. English Etymology; or, a derivative Dictionary of the English Language. By George William Lemon (London, M.DCC.LXXXIII).

This is really a problem. Both of these books are far too old to be taken seriously as etymological authorities. Doubtless there will be a few exceptions, but for the most part no linguist believes Latin is derived from Greek. They are siblings.

(I was going to say one more thing on your blog, but I forgot, so I'll mention it here â€” familiarize yourself with the principles of the Neogrammarian Hypothesis to learn exactly what's wrong with the ad-hoc etymologies you're getting from these old books.)

The best and most thorough introduction to modern Indo-European historical linguistics is Benjamin W. Fortson's, Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction, Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Unfortunately it's a bit expensive, but it will give you the background that I, other people on Textkit, and nearly every modern student of Historical linguistics are working from.

As I said last week on the Textkit forum, posts comparing cognates in Latin, Greek and English are interesting and would be welcome. But your insistence on claiming Latin derives from, rather than is related to, Greek is going to irritate people every time you post. It just isn't true, and we don't want beginners getting bad information.

for me indigenous comes clearly from Greek endogenes. In this etymology, there is only "in" and "indu" mentioned. Greeks used this compound word earlier than Latins, so, I think, Greeks should get all the fame. I do not understand this "earlier endo", and after all these attempts to credit Latin more than it's worth, it jumps suddenly to PIE.

There is a truly wretched movie, Robin Hood: Prince of Theives. It's just awful in every way. However, one little dialog stayed with me, and it has been in my mind a lot lately:

[the Sheriff has said he'll cut out Robin Hood's heart with a spoon]
Guy of Gisborne: Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?
Sheriff of Nottingham: Because it's DULL, you twit. It'll hurt more.

For the last few weeks at work I've been asking for my spoon, not to use on other people, but to use on myself â€” anything but have to deal with certain web products.

That anyone at all has to explain that Latin isn't a child of Greek but a cousin â€” a distant one at that â€” leaves me with the same urge to dig out my brains with a dull spoon. It'd stop the burning sensation.

ThomasGR wrote: I do not understand this "earlier endo", and after all these attempts to credit Latin more than it's worth, it jumps suddenly to PIE.

Honestly, why don't you make some effort to understand about "earlier endo," then? There are 7+ columns of text about Latin <b>in</b> in L&S, and <b>endo, indu</b> are right there at the head of the article. Latin has indu (modified to indi- by perfectly well-known Latin sound changes). It has gignere. It has everything it needs to form the word indigenus without any help from Greek. And why on earth would the Latins borrow a word meaning "born in the house" for "native, vernacular"?

for me indigenous comes clearly from Greek endogenes. In this etymology, there is only "in" and "indu" mentioned. Greeks used this compound word earlier than Latins, so, I think, Greeks should get all the fame. I do not understand this "earlier endo", and after all these attempts to credit Latin more than it's worth, it jumps suddenly to PIE.

This train of thought is confounding. Greek and Latin merely share common roots. My sister and I have Italian noses because we share a common heritage â€” not because my sister is my mother!

they might have known the Greek endogenes and where somewhat lazy to look up grammar rules and form indigenus.

Why on Earth would Greek â€” which has no decendents but Modern Greek (with small exception perhaps) â€” be better known as a reference before Latin, the European language for thousands of years known at one time universally, and the mother tongue of several European languages? The logic here is truly sophistic.

ThomasGR wrote:Because when the first English wrote endo, they might have known the Greek endogenes and where somewhat lazy to look up grammar rules and form indigenus.

[choking sound here] You're just pulling fantasies out of the air!

The OED has 1646 as the first attested use of the word in English. Do you suppose the first person to use it in English had such poor command of Latin he couldn't remember a word used in both classical and medieval Latin and instead pulled out a mangled pronunciation of a Greek word that has a total of three citations in LSJ?

ThomasGR wrote:Because when the first English wrote endo, they might have known the Greek endogenes and where somewhat lazy to look up grammar rules and form indigenus.

[choking sound here] You're just pulling fantasies out of the air!

The OED has 1646 as the first attested use of the word in English. Do you suppose the first person to use it in English had such poor command of Latin he couldn't remember a word used in both classical and medieval Latin and instead pulled out a mangled pronunciation of a Greek word that has a total of three citations in LSJ?

*laughs with Will, pats him on the back* I feel your pain, man. Hand me that spoon when you're done!

That anyone at all has to explain that Latin isn't a child of Greek but a cousin

It escapes your attention that we all know that too well. My dumb problem is, at least I have this impression quite often, that dictionaries are not always precisely correct, have the tendency to stop at medieval French or Latin, underestimating the Greek contribution to form abstract words so easily, or jump directly to PIE. Latin is not a child of Greek. That's true, but when we deal with compound words, it should be mentioned who was the first to make this composition. For me, indigenus looks like a translation of endogenes. On the other hand, I expect too much from an online dictionary. To compressed all the knowledge in two lines.

Lucus Eques wrote:I love that IE family tree! I'm going to print that out and put it on my wall.

I recall seeing a language family tree once and seem to recall that Greek was much more closely related to Russian than this tree seems to indicate.
This could be due to the fact that it was not restricted to PIE so to make it overseeable a lot of the small branches and twigs may have been left off. The way I recall, Greek and Russian were lone sisters. This family tree I found in a (borrowed) book put out by a languages museum.

annis wrote: That anyone at all has to explain that Latin isn't a child of Greek but a cousin â€” a distant one at that â€” leaves me with the same urge to dig out my brains with a dull spoon. It'd stop the burning sensation.

If it will ease the burning sensation I am willing to tell you that your pain has not been in vain for now I know a bit about the relationship. (Why it has to be so painful to explain this I do not know.)

We are getting a bit off-topic here but does anyone know what the name of the hockey player Anthropov (who I think is Russian (?)) means? Is it actually a Russian word? It sure looks like a Greek word.